get_agents_by_owner

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the accepted owner identifier formats but omits pagination, rate limits, or result-shape details. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scoping condition and accepted identifier forms are packed efficiently without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, owner scope, and identifier formats. It leaves minor gaps around the limit parameter and pagination behavior, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for owner_identifier by specifying UPN, name, or objectId, but it does not explain the limit parameter. This is partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb and resource ('Lista Agents') with an explicit scoping condition ('sob responsabilidade de um owner'). Sibling differentiation is not explicit; it does not name related tools like list_agent_identities or get_agent_relationships.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need agents owned by or under a specific owner. It does not state when to prefer alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit routing guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.